Diabetes and Cancer: A consensus report ppt

Diabetes and Cancer A consensus report EDWARD GIOVANNUCCI, MD, SCD 1 * DAVID M. HARLAN, MD 2 * M ICHAEL C. ARCHER, MA, PHD, DSC 3 RICHARD M. BERGENSTAL, MD 4 SUSAN M. GAPSTUR, PHD 5 LAUREL A. HABEL, PHD 6 MICHAEL POLLAK, MD 7 JUDITH G. REGENSTEINER, PHD 8 DOUGLAS YEE, MD 9 Epidemiologic evidence suggests that cancer incidence is associated with diabetes as well as certain diabetes risk factors and diabetes treatments. This consensus statement of experts assem- bled jointly by the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society reviews the state of science concerning 1) the association between diabetes and cancer incidence or prog- nosis, 2) risk factors common to both diabetes and cancer, 3) possible biologic links between diabetes and cancer risk, and 4) whether diabetes treatments influence risk of cancer or cancer prognosis. In addition, key unanswered questions for future research are posed. Diabetes Care 33:1674–1685, 2010 D iabetes and cancer are common dis- eases with tremendous impact on health worldwide. Epidemiologic evidence suggests that people with diabe- tes are at significantly higher risk for many forms of cancer. Type 2 diabetes and cancer share many risk factors, but potential biologic links between the two diseases are incompletely understood. Moreover, evidence from observational studies suggests that some medications used to treat hyperglycemia are associated with either increased or reduced risk of can- cer. Against this backdrop, the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society convened a consensus de- velopment conference in December 2009. Following a series of scientific presentations by experts in the field, the writing group independently developed this consensus report to address the following questions: 1. Is there a meaningful association be- tween diabetes and cancer incidence or prognosis? 2. What risk factors are common to both diabetes and cancer? 3. What are possible biologic links be- tween diabetes and cancer risk? 4. Do diabetes treatments influence risk of cancer or cancer prognosis? For each area, the authors were asked to address the current gaps in evidence and potential research and epidemiologic strategies for developing more definitive evidence in the future. Table 1 includes a summary of findings and recommenda- tions. Recommendations in this report are solely the opinions of the authors and do not represent official position of the American Diabetes Association or the American Cancer Society. 1. Is there a meaningful association between diabetes and cancer incidence or prognosis? Both diabetes and cancer are prevalent diseases whose incidence is increasing globally. Worldwide, the prevalence of cancer has been difficult to establish be- cause many areas do not have cancer reg- istries, but in 2008 there were an estimated 12.4 million new cancer cases diagnosed. The most commonly diag- nosed cancers are lung/bronchus, breast, and colorectal, whereas the most com- mon causes of cancer deaths are lung, stomach, and liver cancer (1). In the U.S., the most commonly diagnosed cancers are prostate, lung/bronchus, and colon/ rectum in men and breast, lung/ bronchus, and colon/rectum in women. Of the world population between the ages of 20 and 79 years, an estimated 285 mil- lion people, or 6.6%, have diabetes (2). In 2007, diabetes prevalence in the U.S. was 10.7% of persons aged 20 years and older (23.6 million individuals), with an esti- mated 1.6 million new cases per year. Type 2 diabetes is the most common form, accounting for ϳ95% of prevalent cases (3). Worldwide, cancer is the 2nd and diabetes is the 12th leading cause of death (4). In the U.S., cancer is the 2nd and diabetes is the 7th leading cause of death; the latter is likely an underesti- mate, since diabetes is underreported on death certificates as both a cause and co- morbid condition (3). Cancer and diabetes are diagnosed within the same individual more fre- quently than would be expected by chance, even after adjusting for age. Both diseases are complex with multiple sub- types. Diabetes is typically divided into two major subtypes, type 1 and type 2 diabetes, along with less common types, while cancer is typically classified by its anatomic origin (of which there are over 50, e.g., lymphoma, leukemia, lung, and breast cancer) and within which there may be multiple subtypes (e.g., leuke- mia). Further, the pathophysiologies un- derlying both cancer and diabetes are (with rare exceptions) incompletely understood. For more than 50 years, clinicians have reported the occurrence of patients with concurrent diabetes and cancer. However, as early as 1959, Joslin et al. (5) stated, “Studies of the association of dia- betes and cancer have been conducted over a period of years, but evidence of a positive association remains inconclu- ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● From the 1 Department of Nutrition, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; the 2 Diabetes Center of Excellence, UMass Memorial Medical Center and Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts; the 3 Departments of Nutritional Sciences and Medical Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; the 4 International Diabetes Center at Park Nicollet, Minneapolis, Minnesota; the 5 Epidemiology Research Program, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia; the 6 Division of Re- search, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California; the 7 Department of Oncology, McGill University, Mon- treal, Quebec, Canada; the 8 University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado; and the 9 Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Corresponding author: Edward Giovannucci, egiovann@hsph.harvard.edu. *Writing Group Co-Chair. This article is jointly published by the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society. DOI: 10.2337/dc10-0666 © 2010 by the American Diabetes Association and the American Cancer Society. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details. Reviews/Commentaries/ADA Statements ADA CONSENSUS REPORT 1674 DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 care.diabetesjournals.org sive.” Subsequently, an association be- tween the two diseases was identified in the 1960s in population-based studies. More recently, the results of several stud- ies have been combined for meta-analytic study (6), indicating that some cancers develop more commonly in patients with diabetes (predominantly type 2), while prostate cancer occurs less often in men with diabetes. The relative risks imparted by diabetes are greatest (about twofold or higher) for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and endometrium, and lesser (about 1.2– 1.5 fold) for cancers of the colon and rec- tum, breast, and bladder. Other cancers (e.g., lung) do not appear to be associated with an increased risk in diabetes, and the evidence for others (e.g., kidney, non- Hodgkin lymphoma) is inconclusive. Few studies have explored links with type 1 diabetes. Since insulin is produced by pancre- atic ␤-cells and then transported via the portal vein to the liver, both the liver and the pancreas are exposed to high concen- trations of endogenously produced insu- lin. Diabetes-related factors including steatosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and cirrhosis may also enhance suscepti- bility to liver cancer. With regard to pan- creatic cancer, interpretation of the causal nature of the association is complicated by the fact that abnormal glucose metab- olism may be a consequence of pancreatic cancer (so-called “reverse causality”). However, a positive association between diabetes and pancreatic cancer risk has been found when restricted to diabetes that precedes the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer by at least 5 years, so reverse cau- sation does not likely account for the en- tirety of the association. Only for prostate cancer is diabetes associated with a lower risk. This associ- ation has been observed both before and after the advent of screening with pros- tate-specific antigen (PSA), so detection bias due to differential PSA utilization does not account for this finding. Some metabolic factors associated with diabe- tes, such as reduced testosterone levels, may be involved (although circulating testosterone levels have not been consis- tently associated with prostate cancer in- cidence). While obesity has not been associated, and in some studies is even inversely associated, with prostate cancer incidence, obese men with prostate can- cer have higher cancer mortality rates than those of normal weight (7). In addi- tion to metabolic factors such as hyperin- sulinemia, obesity may be associated with clinical factors (such as delayed diagnosis, poorer treatment) that may underlie the worsened prostate cancer prognosis. Results of some, but not all, epidemi- ological studies suggest that diabetes may significantly increase mortality in patients with cancer (8). For example, in one study, 5-year mortality rates were signifi- cantly higher (hazard ratio 1.39) in pa- tients diagnosed with both breast cancer and diabetes than in comparable breast cancer patients without diabetes (9). Since diabetes is associated with excess age-adjusted mortality, whether the ap- parent excess mortality associated with diabetes in cancer patients is any greater than the excess mortality observed among diabetic patients without cancer is un- clear. Of note, higher pre-diagnosis C- peptide levels (an indirect marker of insulin resistance) have been associated with a poorer disease-specific survival for prostate cancer (7) and colorectal cancer (10). Unanswered questions Diabetes has been consistently associated with increased risk of several of the more common cancers, but for many, espe- cially the less common cancers, data are limited or absent (6) and more research is needed. Uncertainty is even greater for the issue of diabetes and cancer prognosis or cancer-specific mortality. It remains unclear whether the association between diabetes and cancer is direct (e.g., due to hyperglycemia), whether diabetes is a marker of underlying biologic factors that alter cancer risk (e.g., insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia), or whether the cancer-diabetes association is indirect and due to common risk factors such as obesity. Whether cancer risk is influenced by duration of diabetes is a critical and complex issue and may be further com- plicated by the multidrug therapy often necessary for diabetes treatment (as dis- cussed in question 4). What is also re- quired is a better understanding of whether diabetes influences cancer prog- nosis above and beyond the prognosis conferred by each disease state inde- pendently. To adequately address these ques- tions, prospective population-based stud- ies with high-quality databases are needed to compare incidence of specific cancers between individuals with high circulating insulin levels with or without diabetes and nondiabetic individuals with normal insulin sensitivity (and therefore low insulin levels). Examining other dia- betes-related biomarkers (e.g., adiponec- tin, hyperglycemia) is also critical. Importantly, common confounders (such as body weight and physical activity) must also be more readily available and assessed. Better characterization of as- pects of diabetes (diabetes duration, ther- apy, degree of glycemic control) in relation to cancer risk is needed. In view of the variable associations between dia- betes and cancer risk at specific sites, the authors discourage studies exploring links between diabetes and risk of all can- cers combined. For example, since lung cancer does not appear to be meaning- fully linked with diabetes, including this common cancer in studies will dilute ob- served associations, should they exist. 2. What risk factors are common to both cancer and diabetes? Potential risk factors (modifiable and nonmodifiable) common to both cancer and diabetes include aging, sex, obesity, physical activity, diet, alcohol, and smoking. Nonmodifiable risk factors Age. Although the incidence of some cancers peaks in childhood or in young adults, the incidence of most cancers in- creases with age. In economically devel- oped countries, 78% of all newly diagnosed cancer occurs among individ- uals aged 55 years and older (11). Diabe- tes also becomes increasingly common with age: Prevalence is 2.6% in U.S. adults 20–39 years of age, 10.8% in those 40–59 years of age, and increases to 23.8% in those 60 years of age or older (3). In parallel with the obesity epidemic, type 2 diabetes is becoming more fre- quent among adolescents and young adults (12,13), potentially adding years of additional risk from diabetes to the population. Sex. While certain cancers are sex- specific (e.g., cervix, uterine, testicular, prostate), or nearly so (breast), overall cancer occurs more frequently in men. Men have slightly higher age-adjusted risk of diabetes than women (3). Race/ethnicity. The age-standardized incidence of cancer and diabetes varies significantly among different popula- tions. Factors that may contribute to this variability include differences in the prev- alence of major risk factors, genetic fac- tors, medical practices such as screening, and completeness of reporting. In the U.S., African Americans are more likely to develop and die from cancer than other Giovannucci and Associates care.diabetesjournals.org DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 1675 race or ethnic groups. Following African Americans are non-Hispanic whites, with Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders having lower cancer incidence and mortality (14). As with the worldwide situation, the U.S. race/ethnic variability in cancer incidence is attributed, at least in part, to socioeco- nomic and other disparities, but biologi- cal factors, such as levels of hormones that vary by race (15), may also play a role. In the U.S., type 2 diabetes and its complications disproportionately affect a number of specific populations, includ- ing African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders compared with non-Hispanic whites (3). While incompletely under- stood, genetic, socioeconomic, lifestyle, and other environmental factors are thought to contribute to these disparities. Modifiable risk factors Overweight, obesity, and weight change. Overweight (BMI Ն25 and Ͻ30 kg/m 2 ) or obese (BMI Ն30 kg/m 2 ) indi - viduals have a higher risk for many types of cancer compared with individuals whose BMI is considered within the nor- mal range (18.5 to Ͻ25 kg/m 2 ) (16,17). The cancers most consistently associated with overweight and obesity are breast (in postmenopausal women), colon/rectum, endometrium, pancreas, adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, kidney, gallbladder, and liver. Obesity may also increase risk of mortality from some cancers, such as prostate (7). A growing body of evidence suggests that weight gain is associated with an increased risk of some cancers, breast cancer in particular (17). Increases in body weight during adulthood largely reflect increases in adipose tissue rather than lean mass, so total body fat may be a better measure of the risk for cancer than BMI. Studies over decades have consis- tently shown a strong association between obesity and both insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes incidence (18), with risk of diabetes and earlier age at onset directly linked to obesity severity (19). For type 2 diabetes (20) as well as certain cancers (e.g., colon) (21), some studies suggest that waist circumference, waist-to-hip ra- tio, or direct measures of visceral adipos- ity are associated with risk independently of BMI. The case for a causal relationship be- tween obesity and disease is strengthened by evidence that weight loss lowers dis- ease risk. In the case of diabetes, numer- ous studies have shown that weight loss decreases diabetes incidence and restores euglycemia in a significant fraction of individuals with type 2 diabetes. In the randomized, prospective, multicenter Diabetes Prevention Program trial, an in- tensive lifestyle intervention of diet (tar- geting 5–7% weight loss) and physical activity was associated with a 58% reduc- tion in diabetes incidence in high-risk in- dividuals (22), and weight loss accounted for most of the effect (23). In addition, weight loss may also limit the risk of de- veloping gestational diabetes (24). The association between weight loss and subsequent cancer risk is less clear. Most evidence has been derived from breast cancer studies, where weak or null associations were observed. Since the weight loss definition and the referent groups differed across studies, these stud- ies are difficult to compare. Weight loss categories tend to have small numbers, and many women who do lose weight do not maintain their weight loss beyond 1 year. In the Nurses’ Health Study, a statis- tically significant inverse association be- tween adult weight loss and post- menopausal breast cancer was found only when the weight loss had been main- tained for two survey cycles, or 4 years (25). Observational studies of weight loss and cancer risk require extremely large sample sizes with long-term follow-up and careful monitoring of weight change. One concern of all observational studies of weight loss and subsequent cancer risk is that weight loss may be a sign of undi- agnosed cancer. As a practical matter, a randomized clinical trial to study the ef- fect of weight loss on cancer risk is un- likely to be feasible; such a study would have to be very large and would likely be stopped early due to a protective effect on diabetes and heart disease before enough cancer end points would accumulate. The significant amount of weight lost with bariatric surgery may also provide clarity to this issue. However, a recent summary (26) noted the limited evidence of the effects of bariatric surgery on cancer incidence. Among the studies published to date, three found that obese women who underwent bariatric surgery were at lower risk of cancer (relative risks ranging from 0.58 to 0.62) compared with un- treated obese women. The inverse associ- ations appeared to be due in large part to a protective effect on breast and endome- trial cancer. In the two studies that in- cluded men, no association between bariatric surgery and cancer risk was observed. Bariatric surgery is a very effective treatment for type 2 diabetes, with a meta- analysis showing that type 2 diabetes re- solved in 78% and resolved or improved in 87% of patients after bariatric surgery (27). In contrast to the known effects of bariatric surgery on treating diabetes, the therapy’s role in preventing diabetes would seem likely but has not been estab- lished through prospective trials. Diet. A majority of studies (despite dif- ferent study designs and differing study populations) suggest that diets low in red and processed meats and higher in vege- tables, fruits, and whole grains are associ- ated with a lower risk of many types of cancer (17,28,29). Diets that are low in red and processed meat but high in monounsaturated fatty acids, fruits, vege- tables, whole grain cereals, and dietary fi- ber may protect against type 2 diabetes, possibly through improving insulin sen- sitivity (30,31). Low-carbohydrate diets (which often include greater consump- tion of red meats and fat) have also been associated with weight loss and improve- ments in insulin sensitivity and glycemic control. However, randomized controlled trial evidence of dietary interventions and diabetes prevention only exists for low- fat, low-calorie, plus/minus high-fiber di- ets (22,32). Several studies suggest that diets high in foods with a high glycemic index or load are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (28,33). However, evi- dence of their associations with cancer risk is mixed (28,34,35). Regardless, to the extent that energy-dense and sugary foods contribute to overweight and obe- sity, the American Cancer Society, the World Cancer Research Fund, and the American Institute for Cancer Research recommend limiting consumption of these foods (17,29). Physical activity. Evidence from obser- vational epidemiologic studies consis- tently shows that higher levels of physical activity are associated with a lower risk of colon, postmenopausal breast, and endo- metrial cancer (17,36,37). Physical activ- ity may also help prevent other cancers, including lung and aggressive prostate cancer, but a clear link has not been es- tablished. Some evidence also suggests that physical activity postdiagnosis may improve cancer survival for some cancers, including breast (38) and colorectal (39). A protective role for increased physi- cal activity in diabetes metabolism and Diabetes and cancer 1676 DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 care.diabetesjournals.org outcomes has been demonstrated. Data from observational and randomized trials suggest that ϳ30 min of moderate- intensity exercise, such as walking, at least 5 days per week substantially re- duces (25–36%) the risk of developing type 2 diabetes (40). Analyses of the ef- fects of different components of the inten- sive lifestyle intervention in the Diabetes Prevention Program suggested that those who did not reach weight loss goals still significantly reduced their risk of diabetes if they reached the exercise goals, al- though weight loss was the only compo- nent independently associated with diabetes prevention in multivariate anal- yses (23). Tobacco smoking. It is estimated that worldwide, tobacco smoking accounts for 71% of all trachea, bronchus, and lung cancer deaths (41). Other cancers strongly associated with smoking are lar- ynx, upper digestive, bladder, kidney, pancreas, leukemia, liver, stomach, and uterine cervix. Studies suggest that smok- ing is also an independent risk factor for the development of diabetes (42,43). In addition, because of the effect of smoking on increasing risk of cardiovascular dis- ease, retinopathy, and other complica- tions of diabetes, smoking has an adverse effect on diabetes-related health out- comes (44). Alcohol. Alcoholic beverage consump- tion, even in moderate amounts, increases the risk of many types of cancer including those of the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, esophagus, liver, colon/rectum, and fe- male breast (45). While excess alcohol consumption is also a risk factor for dia- betes, moderate alcohol consumption has been associated with reduced diabetes in- cidence in both men and women (46,47). Unanswered questions A critical question is whether the associa- tions between diabetes and risk of certain cancers is largely due to shared risk fac- tors (obesity, poor diet, physical inactiv- ity, and aging), or whether diabetes itself, and the specific metabolic derangements typical of diabetes (e.g., hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia), in- crease the risk for some types of cancer. While it is clear that lower levels of adi- posity, healthy diets, and regular physical activity are associated with reduced risk for type 2 diabetes and for several com- mon types of cancer, these factors are generally interrelated, making the contribution of each factor difficult to as- sess. More research is needed to under- stand the role of specific components of healthy lifestyles independent of others (e.g., diet quality independent of body weight). In addition, further study of those who are of normal body weight but have hyperinsulinemia or are sedentary, and of those who are obese but have nor- mal metabolic parameters, is necessary to better understand the relationship be- tween diabetes and cancer risk. Little is known about how modifiable lifestyle fac- tors influence prognosis in cancer pa- tients. How genetic variants that influence diverse aspects of diabetes (e.g., insulin resistance, ␤-cell depletion) influence cancer risk may provide insights into the nature of the diabetes-cancer relation- ship. Addressing these questions will re- quire large, long-term observational studies, with their inherent limitations. Although not powered for cancer out- comes, long-term trials such as the Look AHEAD trial of the effects of weight loss on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with diabetes (48), and follow-up of co- horts in lifestyle studies such as the Dia- betes Prevention Program, may provide further evidence for the impact of lifestyle improvements on cancer incidence. 3. What are possible biologic links between diabetes and cancer risk? Carcinogenesis is a complex process. Normal cells must undergo multiple ge- netic “hits” before the full neoplastic phenotype of growth, invasion, and me- tastasis occurs. This process of malignant transformation can be divided into multi- ple steps: initiation (irreversible first step toward cancer), promotion (stimulation of the growth of initiated cells), and progression (development of a more ag- gressive phenotype of promoted cells). Factors that affect one or more steps of this pathway could be associated with cancer incidence or mortality. Diabetes may influence the neoplastic process by several mechanisms, including hyperin- sulinemia (either endogenous due to in- sulin resistance or exogenous due to administered insulin or insulin secreto- gogues), hyperglycemia, or chronic inflammation. The insulin/IGF axis Insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) receptors form a complex network of cell surface receptors; homodimers and heterodimers have been described, and all function to mediate insulin and IGF responses (49). Most cancer cells express insulin and IGF-I receptors; the A isoform of the insulin receptor is commonly ex- pressed. The A receptor isoform can stim- ulate insulin-mediated mitogenesis, even in cells deficient in IGF-I receptors (50). In addition to its metabolic functions, the insulin receptor is also capable of stimu- lating cancer cell proliferation and metas- tasis. Because most glucose uptake in cancer cells is constitutively high and in- dependent of insulin binding to its recep- tor (51), the effects of insulin receptor activation on neoplastic cells may relate more to cell survival and mitogenesis than to enhanced glucose uptake. Multiple signaling pathways are acti- vated after insulin receptors or IGF-I re- ceptors interact with their ligands. By phosphorylating adaptor proteins, most notably the insulin receptor substrate (IRS) family, the initial kinase event is linked to downstream signaling pathways (52). Once activated, these signaling pathways may stimulate multiple cancer phenotypes including proliferation, pro- tection from apoptotic stimuli, invasion, and metastasis, potentially enhancing promotion and progression of many types of cancer cells. It is also clear that insulin/ IGF may stimulate normal cells that are involved in cancer progression. For ex- ample, hyperglycemia allows IGF-I to stimulate vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation and migration (53). While this process has been linked to the patho- physiology of atherosclerosis, abnormal vasculature growth is also a hallmark of cancer. Apart from direct effects of insulin on cancer cells, it is possible that hyperinsu- linemia could promote carcinogenesis in- directly through its effects on IGF-I (54). Insulin reduces the hepatic production of IGF binding protein (IGFBP)-1 (55,56) and possibly IGFBP-2 (57) with resultant increases in the levels of circulating free, bioactive IGF-I. IGF-I has more potent mitogenic and anti-apoptotic activities than insulin (58) and could act as a growth stimulus in preneoplastic and neoplastic cells that express insulin, IGF-I, and hybrid receptors (49). Human tumors commonly over-express these re- ceptors, and many cancer cell lines have been shown to be responsive to the mito- genic action of physiological concentra- tions of IGF-I. As has been found in other cancers, insulin receptors are frequently expressed by breast cancer cells (59). Compared with the ligand (i.e., insulin), higher lev- els of insulin receptor have been associ- ated with favorable breast cancer Giovannucci and Associates care.diabetesjournals.org DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 1677 prognosis in some studies (60,61). While these findings may seem to be contradic- tory, they are consistent with other hor- mone-dependent pathways in breast cancer. Elevated serum levels of estradiol are weakly associated with increased breast cancer risk (62), while expression of estrogen receptor (ER)-␣ is a favorable prognostic factor (63). Just like ER, insu- lin receptor may be a marker of breast cancer cell differentiation and identify cells with a potentially less aggressive phenotype. On the other hand, a recent larger study (64) concluded that high in- sulin receptor levels are related to adverse prognosis; further research is needed. Moreover, the relationship between se- rum levels of insulin and regulation of in- sulin receptor levels in neoplastic tissues has never been established. Since growth factors may downregulate the expression of their cognate receptors, it is possible that tumors with low insulin receptor lev- els are the most insulin-stimulated. Thus, there are biologically plausible models and correlative human clinical studies suggesting that insulin acting through in- sulin receptors might affect breast cancer risk and progression. Effect of hyperinsulinemia on other hormones Increased circulating insulin has a num- ber of indirect effects including a reduc- tion in the hepatic synthesis and blood levels of sex hormone binding globulin, leading to increases in bioavailable estro- gen in both men and women and in- creased levels of bioavailable testosterone in women but not in men (65). Androgen synthesis in the ovaries and possibly the adrenals is increased by hyperinsulinemia in premenopausal women. Elevated en- dogenous sex steroid levels are associated with a higher risk of postmenopausal breast, endometrial, and possibly other cancers. Hyperglycemia and cancer In considering the complexity of interac- tions between diabetes, diabetes treat- ments, and cancer, it is important to not overlook glucose as a potentially relevant mediator. The recent resurgence of inter- est in the Warburg hypothesis and cancer energetics (66) emphasizes the depen- dence of many cancers on glycolysis for energy, creating a high requirement for glucose (or even “glucose addiction”), since ATP generation by glycolysis re- quires far more glucose than oxidative phosphorylation. Indeed, this forms the basis for FDG-PET imaging of cancers, which detects tissues with high rates of glucose uptake. The possibility that un- treated hyperglycemia facilitates neo- plastic proliferation therefore deserves consideration. Direct data concerning dose-response characteristics of cancers to glucose are sparse, but it is relevant that most cancers have highly effective up- regulated, insulin-independent glucose uptake mechanisms (67) and therefore may not derive a further growth advan- tage from hyperglycemia. In vivo models showing reduced tu- mor growth in the setting of type 1 diabe- tes (68) suggest that hyperglycemia does not lead to increased neoplastic growth, at least in the setting of insulin deficiency. Studies relating hyperglycemia to cancer do not necessarily indicate that glucose mediates the relationship; rather, hyper- glycemia may serve as a surrogate for a causative factor such as hyperinsulin- emia. Given the molecular heterogeneity of cancers, one cannot at this point ex- clude the possibility that there exists a subset of tumors for which hyperglycemia confers a growth advantage and appropri- ate therapy for diabetes therefore limits tumor growth, but the aggregate data sug- gest that insulin receptor activation may be a more important variable than hyper- glycemia in determining tumor growth. Inflammatory cytokines, diabetes, and cancer risk In addition to the direct effects of insulin, type 2 diabetes and/or the related obesity might enhance other pathways resulting in malignant progression. As recently re- viewed, adipose tissue is an active endo- crine organ producing free fatty acids, interleukin-6 (IL-6), monocyte chemoat- tractant protein, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), adiponectin, leptin, and tumor necrosis factor-␣ (69). Each of these factors might play an etiologic role in regulating malignant transformation or cancer progression. In some cases, the role for these molecules is well known. For example, the plasminogen system has been linked to cancer with expression of PAI-1 linked to poor outcome in breast cancer (70). Activation of signal trans- ducer and activator of transcription pro- tein (STAT) signaling, via cytokines such as IL-6, is known to enhance cancer cell proliferation, survival, and invasion while also suppressing host anti-tumor immu- nity (71). Similarly, animal studies of energy balance support epidemiologic results re- lating obesity with cancer mortality. Cer- tain experimental cancers tend to behave more aggressively when animals overeat and less aggressively when animals are ca- lorically restricted (72–74). These studies provide evidence that diet-induced changes in IL-6 and/or insulin may medi- ate the effect of diet on neoplasia and in- dicate that differences between tumors with respect to specific signaling path- ways determine the extent to which diet influences tumor behavior (75). Major unanswered questions As previously outlined, there is a growing body of epidemiologic evidence support- ing a link between diabetes and the inci- dence and/or prognosis of some cancers. It is recognized the association may not be causal; diabetes and cancer may be asso- ciated simply because they share common predisposing risk factors such as obesity. However, a number of plausible biologic mechanisms have been described that may account for this link, including ef- fects of hyperglycemia, hyperinsulinemia, and inflammation on cancer etiology and progression. Mechanisms by which these factors interact with cancer risk require further study. Another important area for investigation concerns the issue of insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes in cells of non-classic insulin target organs, such as the breast, colon, or prostate. The as- sumption that in the setting of insulin resistance of classic insulin target or- gans (liver, muscle, adipose tissue) at least a subset of cancers remain insulin- sensitive, or that insulin insensitivity to metabolic pathways does not extend to resistance to growth-promoting proper- ties, needs to be more closely examined. How common is this? And what are the dose-response characteristics of insulin stimulation of such cancers? Research is ongoing to provide a clearer understanding of these possible links, and this information may be rele- vant for prevention and optimal patient management. Most of the supporting ev- idence on biologic mechanisms comes from in vivo and in vitro studies. Since multiple prediagnostic biospecimens are rarely available on cohorts large enough for studies of cancer, many epidemiologic studies are only able to evaluate a single time point when measuring levels of in- sulin, glucose, or other analytes. The risk of long-term exposure to high levels of insulin is relatively underexplored and has direct relevance to the cancer risk as- sociated with diabetes duration and use of Diabetes and cancer 1678 DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 care.diabetesjournals.org exogenous insulin. In addition, most of the large studies have only fasting levels; postprandial (area under the curve) insu- lin levels have not been adequately examined. 4. Do diabetes treatments influence cancer risk or cancer prognosis? Improved glucose control remains one of the central goals of effective diabetes man- agement, which strives to minimize mor- bidity and mortality by reducing the risk of diabetes-associated complications. Several factors are considered by clini- cians and patients when selecting phar- macologic diabetes therapies. These include the type of diabetes being treated, the glucose-lowering potential of a given agent, known acute and chronic adverse effects of treatment (such as weight gain, hypoglycemia, fluid retention, gastroin- testinal intolerance), treatment costs, and patient comorbidities and characteris- tics. Only recently has the issue of can- cer risk with diabetes treatments been considered. Individuals with type 1 diabetes rep- resent ϳ5% of the diabetes population worldwide. The autoimmune destruction of the pancreatic ␤-cells results in the loss of insulin production and the need for immediate and lifelong insulin therapy. In contrast, type 2 diabetes is much more common and accounts for ϳ95% of the diabetes population. Type 2 diabetes is generally associated with overweight and obesity (in an estimated 80% of cases) and commonly advances from a pre-diabetic state characterized by insulin resistance (hyperinsulinemia) to frank diabetes with sustained insulin resistance accompanied by a progressive reduction in insulin se- cretion. The resulting relative insulin de- ficiency gives rise to both fasting and postmeal hyperglycemia. Ongoing loss of insulin secretory capacity, along with a diminished incretin effect and several other pathophysiologic defects (76), makes the hyperglycemia of type 2 diabe- tes progressive. This results in increasing use of pharmacologic agents over time and the eventual need for insulin therapy in approximately half of all patients (77). The selection of the most appropriate pharmacologic agent(s) for each patient involves clinical decision-making process that includes an ongoing risk/benefit analysis (78). Metformin The biguanide metformin is the most commonly used therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, often prescribed as initial or combination therapy (79). While the mechanism of action of metformin in di- abetes is only partially understood, met- formin treatment generally reduces levels of both circulating glucose and insulin in patients with insulin resistance and hy- perinsulinemia. The primary mode of ac- tion is through reduced hepatic glucose output (80). In laboratory studies, metformin has been shown to inhibit cell proliferation, reduce colony formation, and cause par- tial cell cycle arrest in cancer cell lines (81–83). These studies suggest that met- formin-induced activation of AMP- activated protein kinase (AMPK) in tumor cells may lead to growth inhibition, at least in part by inhibiting protein synthe- sis (84). Interestingly, in vivo studies show that metformin has less antineo- plastic activity in mice on a control diet than it does in mice on a high-energy diet associated with hyperinsulinemia and accelerated tumor growth (74). This suggests that the insulin-lowering action of metformin may contribute to its anti-neoplastic activity, and that it may have less impact on cancers in less hyper- insulinemic patients. Other in vitro stud- ies suggest that metformin may selectively kill cancer stem cells and enhance effec- tiveness of breast cancer treatment regi- mens (85–87). Metformin has also been shown to reduce mammary tumor growth in rodent models (88). Results of a growing number of obser- vational human studies suggest that treat- ment with metformin (relative to other glucose-lowering therapies) is associated with reduced risk of cancer (89–93) or cancer mortality (94). However, these studies have generally been limited in their ability to assess association with spe- cific cancer types. Confounding by indi- cation may limit the interpretation of results from observational studies, as met- formin is most typically prescribed to those with short duration of diabetes and without contraindicating factors (ad- vanced age, liver, or kidney disease) that also might impact risk of some cancers. Additional observational data suggest that metformin might improve cancer prognosis. Metformin treatment was as- sociated with higher pathologic complete response among early-stage breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (95). The potential effect of metformin on breast cancer cell proliferation (as mea- sured by Ki67 index) is currently being evaluated in a clinical trial with a small number of subjects (96), and other trials of metformin therapy in patients with breast cancer are planned. Thiazolidinediones Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) are insulin- sensitizing peroxisome proliferator– activated receptor (PPAR)␥ agonists that do not increase insulin secretion directly or cause hypoglycemia when used alone. Two drugs in this class, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, are currently available. Un- like metformin, TZDs may be used in pa- tients with renal insufficiency, although fluid retention is a potential adverse ef- fect. TZDs are contraindicated in selected patients, most notably those with liver disease or with active untreated or unsta- ble congestive heart failure. In vitro studies indicate that PPAR␥ agonists have several anti-cancer activi- ties, such as inhibiting growth and induc- ing apoptosis and cell differentiation (97), and PPAR␥ is currently considered a po- tential target for both chemoprevention and cancer therapy based on other pre- clinical studies (98,99). However, since recent in vitro studies indicate that the effects of PPAR␥ agonists on cell growth are often independent of the presence of PPAR␥ (100 –102), the clinical relevance of findings of in vitro studies is unclear. Rodent studies also indicate that PPAR agonists can potentiate tumorigenesis, and they have been considered by some to be multi-species, multi-sex carcinogens (103). Therefore, it is possible that TZDs may increase, decrease, or have a neutral effect on the risk of cancer or cancer pro- gression in humans. Definitive human data on cancer risk associated with TZDs are not available. Three epidemiologic studies conducted among patients with diabetes focused on all cancers combined or only on a limited number of cancer sites, and results were inconsistent (104–106). Results of a re- cent meta-analysis of clinical trials of rosiglitazone showed no statistically sig- nificant increase or decrease in the risk of cancer at all sites combined or at the more common sites, although the numbers of cancer cases at these specific sites were small (107). The epidemiologic studies and the meta-analysis of trials were able to examine only short-term exposure, largely due to the relatively recent intro- duction of these medications and the shorter duration of many clinical efficacy trials. Only a few clinical trials of TZDs for cancer treatment have been conducted, Giovannucci and Associates care.diabetesjournals.org DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 1679 and results have largely been negative (108). Other clinical trials are in progress (109) or are planned (99). Insulin secretagogues Secretagogues, including sulfonylureas and the rapid-acting glinides, stimulate ␤-cells to release insulin by binding to specific cell receptors, resulting in ␤-cell depolarization and release of insulin stores. Sulfonylureas (e.g., glyburide, glipizide, glimepiride) have been used to treat type 2 diabetes for more than 50 years. While this class of agents is one of the more effective in lowering A1C, these drugs can cause hypoglycemia and weight gain. A small number of observational studies found a higher risk of cancer or cancer death among individuals with di- abetes treated with sulfonylureas com- pared with those treated with metformin or other diabetes medications (90 – 92,110). However, most of these studies had very few cancer cases among users of sulfonylureas, and therefore power was limited to examine associations with spe- cific cancer sites (91,111). Studies regard- ing dose, duration, recency, and persistence of use are limited. While it is possible that the associ- ation of sulfonylureas and cancer risk is genuine, it is difficult to determine whether the findings reflect excess cancer among users of the secretagogues or re- duced risk in those using comparator drugs, which often include metformin therapy. Furthermore, if the association were to be confirmed, it remains to be determined if the mechanism involves di- rect actions of the agents on transformed cells or cells at risk for carcinogenesis, as compared with indirect effects mediated by increased insulin levels. There are no published data that support an associa- tion between the glinide secretagogues and cancer risk, perhaps because they are newer and use of these agents is less common. Incretin-based therapies Two recently developed classes of drugs either enhance or mimic the effect of gut- derived incretin hormones that improve glucose-dependent insulin secretion, suppress postprandial glucagon levels, and delay gastric emptying. The first of the incretin-based therapies introduced, exenatide, has ϳ50% homology with the incretin hormone glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), while the more recently ap- proved liraglutide is an analog of human GLP-1. Both compounds bind to the GLP-1 receptor to exert agonist activity. The oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors inhibit the action of the ubiq- uitous enzyme that rapidly degrades many peptides including endogenous GLP-1. Liraglutide increased risk of medul- lary thyroid cancer in rats and mice in preclinical tests and was associated with slight increases in serum calcitonin in hu- man trials (U.S. Food and Drug Adminis- tration). Exenatide, liraglutide, and DPP-4 inhibitors increased ␤-cell prolif- eration in animal studies, and in one small study of a transgenic rodent model, the DPP-4 inhibitor sitagliptin was demon- strated to increase pancreatic ductal hy- perplasia (112). No impact of incretin- based agents on human cancer incidence has been reported, likely due to the fact that these newer drugs have not been used in sufficient numbers of patients or for long enough periods of time to fully assess any possible effects on cancer risk. Insulin and insulin analogs Insulin is required for all patients with type 1 diabetes. It is also necessary for many patients with type 2 diabetes to treat hyperglycemia, in part due to the progres- sive loss of ␤-cell function over time. Be- tween 40 – 80% of individuals with type 2 diabetes will ultimately be considered for insulin therapy in an effort to achieve gly- cemic targets (77). Several formulations of insulin exist: short-acting human reg- ular insulin, intermediate-acting human NPH insulin, and both rapid- and long- acting analogs of human insulin. Subcu- taneous injection of insulin results in significantly higher levels of circulating insulin in the systemic circulation than endogenous insulin secretion, thereby possibly amplifying links between hyper- insulinemia and cancer risk. Recently, a series of widely publicized epidemiologic analyses examined a possi- ble association between insulin use and/or use of the long-acting insulin ana- log glargine (91,110,113,114) and an in- crease in risk of cancer. As noted below, insulin glargine may have a disparate im- pact on cancer risk through its binding to IGF-1 receptors. The potential strengths and weaknesses of these studies have been broadly debated and well detailed (115–117). For example, one concern is that insulin is more commonly prescribed in patients with longer duration of type 2 diabetes and is used more often in those with one or more comorbid conditions that preclude use of comparator medica- tions. Rarely have these or other potential confounders (body mass, actual insulin dose, degree of glucose control, glucose variability, other patient characteristics) been fully accounted for in the study de- signs or analyses. Randomized clinical trial data from an open-label 5-year trial of insulin glargine versus NPH insulin did not find evidence of excess cancer risk (all sites combined) in the insulin glargine arm (118), although among the ϳ1,000 sub- jects randomized, there was a very small number of cancer end points (57 cancer cases in the glargine arm and 62 cases in the NPH arm). The ongoing randomized ORIGIN trial (glargine versus placebo in patients with impaired fasting glucose or newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes) is much larger (ϳ12,000 patients randomized and followed for 6 –7 years) (119). Impor- tantly, this trial was powered for cardio- vascular outcomes and may still not provide definitive evidence regarding cancer incidence, especially for specific cancers. Possible mechanisms for the link between exogenous insulin, insulin analogs, and cancer Potential mechanisms by which adminis- tration of insulin or insulin analogs might influence neoplastic disease include both direct and indirect actions. Direct actions have received the most attention and in- volve interactions of the administered li- gands (or their metabolites) with cancer cells, partially transformed cells, or cells at risk for transformation. Indirect mech- anisms have been less well studied but would involve interactions of signaling molecules whose levels (e.g., glucagon, adiponectin, or IGFBPs) or activity are in- fluenced by administered insulin on these target cells. With respect to direct actions, one must consider not only the affinity of the administered agents for the various recep- tors involved, but also pharmacokinetic aspects. Substantial prior research has emphasized differences between human insulin and analog insulins with respect to binding affinity to the IGF-I receptor, in- cluding evidence that insulin glargine has much higher affinity, and higher mito- genic potency, than human insulin or other analogs (120–122). The affinity of particular analog insulins for the IGF-I re- ceptor is an important issue, in view of evidence that knockdown of the IGF-1 receptor, but not the insulin receptor, abolished proliferation of malignant cell Diabetes and cancer 1680 DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 care.diabetesjournals.org lines in response to insulin glargine (120). However, the implicit assumption that an insulin or analog that retains specificity for the insulin receptor over the IGF-I re- ceptor is unlikely to have important mi- togenic effects or effects on neoplasia may be simplistic in the light of recent research results (64,123) that show that the insulin receptor is present on neoplastic cells and may itself influence neoplastic behavior in certain contexts. Other pharmacokinetic issues must also be considered. It is not clear if there is a biologic difference between exposure of neoplastic cells to fluctuating levels of en- dogenous insulin seen under normal physiologic conditions, as compared with the levels of endogenous insulin in obesity, type 2 diabetes, and/or after ad- ministration of exogenous human or syn- thetic insulins. Classic subcutaneous therapy with subcutaneous human insu- lin involves transient exposures to very high insulin levels, while subcutaneous administration of some synthetic insulins results (by design) in longer-term expo- sure to higher insulin concentrations. As such, simple pharmacokinetics may not fully explain observed changes in the be- havior of neoplastic tissues. It also is crit- ical to recognize that cancer cells in type 2 diabetic patients may be exposed to ab- normally high levels of endogenous insu- lin for many years prior to administration of exogenous insulin. Unanswered questions There are several important limitations in human studies of diabetes treatment and cancer risk that require careful consider- ation. First, most studies have had limited power to detect modest associations, par- ticularly for site-specific cancers. Con- ducting studies with all sites combined might attenuate or even mask important associations with only specific cancer sites. Another limitation of observational studies is that most diabetic patients are treated with one or more anti-hyperglyce- mic medications. Indeed, the progressive nature of type 2 diabetes, requiring changes in pharmacotherapy over time, adds complexity to studies of a long-term outcome such as cancer incidence. There- fore, it is extremely difficult to assess the independent association of a specific medication on cancer risk relative to no medication. For example, if some medi- cations increase risk, while other decrease or have no effect on risk, different com- parator drugs will likely lead to different associations and may explain some of the observed inconsistencies across studies. Because specific anti-hyperglycemic medications are associated with cancer risk factors, confounding by unmeasured or incompletely measured risk factors may at least in part explain the previously reported drug-cancer associations. Few studies examined risk associated with dose, duration, or recency of medication use, which might inform the biologic plausibility of observed associations. Many agents that affect carcinogenesis have long latencies or require a minimum exposure level, and risk associated with some agents may return to baseline after the exposure has been terminated for a period of time. Some diabetes medica- tions have only recently come on the mar- ket (e.g., TZDs, insulin analogs, incretin- based therapies). Therefore, studies of these agents will only assess cancer risk associated with relatively short-term use. It is unlikely that the effect of diabetes therapies on cancer risk and progres- sion—particularly at specific cancer sites—will be fully addressed with ran- domized controlled clinical trials, due to both cost- and follow-up time limitations. Such trials would also be confounded by the natural crossover and treatment esca- lation required to appropriately treat pro- gressive hyperglycemia. Given these limitations, multiple well-conducted and appropriately designed prospective ob- servational studies are needed. Results of in vitro and preclinical studies should in- form design considerations for observa- tional studies but by themselves cannot be considered conclusive. Acknowledgments— The American Cancer Society and American Diabetes Association thank the following companies for their unre- stricted support of the consensus development conference: Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lilly USA; Merck & Company, Inc.; Novo Nordisk A/S; and the sanofi-aventis Groupe. The authors thank the researchers who pre- sented their work at the conference: Rachel Ballard-Barbash, MD, MPH; Frederick Bran- cati, MD, MHS; Peter T. Campbell, PhD; Ed- win Gale, MD; Hertzel C. Gerstein, MD, MSc, FRCP(C); Edward L. Giovannucci, MD, ScD; Pamela Goodwin, MD, MSc, FRCP(C); Mi- chael Goran, PhD; Jeffrey A. Johnson, PhD; Carol Koro, PhD; Larry Kushi, ScD; Derek Le- roith, MD, PhD; Karin B. Michels, MPH, MS, MSc, PhD, ScD; Alpa V. Patel, PhD; Andrew Renehan, PhD, FRCS; Ulf Smith, MD, PhD; Table 1—Summary and recommendations ● Diabetes (primarily type 2) is associated with increased risk for some cancers (liver, pancreas, endometrium, colon and rectum, breast, bladder). Diabetes is associated with reduced risk of prostate cancer. For some other cancer sites there appears to be no association or the evidence is inconclusive. ● The association between diabetes and some cancers may partly be due to shared risk factors between the two diseases, such as aging, obesity, diet, and physical inactivity. ● Possible mechanisms for a direct link between diabetes and cancer include hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia, and inflammation. ● Healthful diets, physical activity, and weight management reduce risk and improve outcomes of type 2 diabetes and some forms of cancer and should be promoted for all. ● Patients with diabetes should be strongly encouraged by their health care professionals to undergo appropriate cancer screenings as recommended for all people in their age and sex. ● The evidence for specific drugs affecting cancer risk is limited, and observed associations may have been confounded by indications for specific drugs, effects on other cancer risk factors such as body weight and hyperinsulinemia, and the complex progressive nature of hyperglycemia and pharmacotherapy in type 2 diabetes. ● Although still limited, early evidence suggests that metformin is associated with a lower risk of cancer and that exogenous insulin is associated with an increased cancer risk. Further research is needed to clarify these issues and evaluate if insulin glargine is more strongly associated with cancer risk compared with other insulins. ● Cancer risk should not be a major factor in choosing between available diabetes therapies for the average patient. For selected patients with very high risk for cancer occurrence (or for recurrence of specific cancer types), these issues may require more careful consideration. ● Many research questions remain, as described in the article. Giovannucci and Associates care.diabetesjournals.org DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 1681 Kevin Struhl, PhD; and Henry Thompson, PhD. Duality of interest statements: E.G., D.M.H., M.C.A., and S.M.G. report no duality of interest. R.M.B. has served on scientific ad- visory boards or as a consultant to Medtronic, Abbott, Bayer Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly, Intuity Medical, MannKind, Novo Nordisk, Roche, sanofi aventis, and Valeritas; has received re- search support from Amylin, Bayer Diabetes Care, Eli Lilly, Mannkind, Medtronic, the Na- tional Institutes of Health (NIH), Novo Nor- disk, ResMed, and LifeScan; and is a joint stockholder in Merck. L.A.H. has received re- search support from Takeda, Merck, Genetech (Roche), and sanofi-aventis. M.P. has received research support from Pfizer and serves as a consultant to sanofi-aventis and Novo Nor- disk. J.G.R. has received research support from NIH and the American Diabetes Associ- ation and has received honoraria from the Uni- versity of Colorado, Denver. D.Y. has served on the advisory board of Novo Nordisk. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported. References 1. World Cancer Report 2008 [article on- line], 2008. Boyle P, Bernard L, Eds. Ce- dex, France, World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Can- cer. Available from http://www.iarc.fr/en/ publications/pdfs-online/wcr/index.php. Accessed 1 April 2010 2. IDF Diabetes Atlas [article online], 2009. 4th ed. Brussels, Belgium, International Diabetes Federation. Available from www.diabetesatlas.org. Accessed 1 April 2010 3. National Diabetes Fact Sheet: General Information and National Estimates on Diabetes in the United States, 2007 [ar- ticle online], 2008. Atlanta, Georgia, Centers for Disease Control and Preven- tion. Available from http://www.cdc. gov/diabetes/pubs/pdf/ndfs_2007.pdf. Accessed 1 April 2010 4. Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jami- son DT, Murray CJ. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 2006;367:1747–1757 5. Joslin EP, Lombard HL, Burrows RE, Manning MD. Diabetes and cancer. N Engl J Med 1959;260:486– 488 6. Vigneri P, Frasca F, Sciacca L, Pandini G, Vigneri R. Diabetes and cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2009;16:1103–1123 7. Ma J, Li H, Giovannucci E, Mucci L, Qiu W, Nguyen PL, Gaziano JM, Pollak M, Stampfer MJ. Prediagnostic body-mass index, plasma C-peptide concentration, and prostate cancer-specific mortality in men with prostate cancer: a long-term survival analysis. Lancet Oncol 2008;9: 1039–1047 8. Barone BB, Yeh HC, Snyder CF, Peairs KS, Stein KB, Derr RL, Wolff AC, Bran- cati FL. Long-term all-cause mortality in cancer patients with preexisting diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta- analysis. JAMA 2008;300:2754–2764 9. Lipscombe LL, Goodwin PJ, Zinman B, McLaughlin JR, Hux JE. The impact of diabetes on survival following breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 109:389–395 10. Wolpin BM, Meyerhardt JA, Chan AT, Ng K, Chan JA, Wu K, Pollak MN, Gio- vannucci EL, Fuchs CS. Insulin, the in- sulin-like growth factor axis, and mortality in patients with nonmetastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27: 176–185 11. Garcia M, Jemal A, Ward EM, Center MM, Hao Y, Siegel RL, Thun MJ. Global Cancer Facts & Figures 2007. Atlanta, Georgia, American Cancer Society, 2007 12. Rosenbloom AL, Joe JR, Young RS, Win- ter WE. Emerging epidemic of type 2 diabetes in youth. Diabetes Care 1999; 22:345–354 13. SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study Group, Liese AD, D’Agostino RB Jr, Hamman RF, Kilgo PD, Lawrence JM, Liu LL, Loots B, Linder B, Marcovina S, Rodriguez B, Standiford D, Williams DE. The burden of diabetes mellitus among US youth: prevalence estimates from the SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study. Pediatrics 2006;118:1510–1518 14. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ: Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 59:225–249, 2009 15. Pinheiro SP, Holmes MD, Pollak MN, Barbieri RL, Hankinson SE. Racial differ- ences in premenopausal endogenous hormones. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark- ers Prev 2005;14:2147–2153 16. Calle EE, Rodriguez C, Walker-Thur- mond K, Thun MJ. Overweight, obesity, and mortality from cancer in a prospec- tively studied cohort of U.S. adults. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1625–1638 17. Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Per- spective [article online], 2007. London, World Cancer Research Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research. Available from http://www.dietandcancerreport. org/. Accessed 1 April 2010 18. Schienkiewitz A, Schulze MB, Hoffmann K, Kroke A, Boeing H. Body mass index history and risk of type 2 diabetes: re- sults from the European Prospective In- vestigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam Study. Am J Clin Nutr 2006;84:427–433 19. Abdul-Ghani MA, Sabbah M, Muati B, Dakwar N, Kashkosh H, Minuchin O, Vardi P, Raz I. High frequency of pre- diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes and met- abolic syndrome among overweight Arabs in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J 2005;7: 143–147 20. Wei M, Gaskill SP, Haffner SM, Stern MP. Waist circumference as the best pre- dictor of noninsulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) compared to body mass index, waist/hip ratio and other an- thropometric measurements in Mexican Americans–a 7-year prospective study. Obes Res 1997;5:16–23 21. Pischon T, Lahmann PH, Boeing H, Friedenreich C, Norat T, Tjønneland A, Halkjaer J, Overvad K, Clavel-Chapelon F, Boutron-Ruault MC, Guernec G, Bergmann MM, Linseisen J, Becker N, Trichopoulou A, Trichopoulos D, Sieri S, Palli D, Tumino R, Vineis P, Panico S, Peeters PH, Bueno-de-Mesquita HB, Boshuizen HC, Van Guelpen B, Palmqvist R, Berglund G, Gonzalez CA, Dorronsoro M, Barricarte A, Navarro C, Martinez C, Quiro´s JR, Roddam A, Allen N, Bingham S, Khaw KT, Ferrari P, Kaaks R, Slimani N, Riboli E. Body size and risk of colon and rectal cancer in the European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:920–931 22. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler SE, Hamman RF, Lachin JM, Walker EA, Nathan DM, Diabetes Prevention Pro- gram Research Group. Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;346:393–403 23. Hamman RF, Wing RR, Edelstein SL, Lachin JM, Bray GA, Delahanty L, Hoskin M, Kriska AM, Mayer-Davis EJ, Pi-Sunyer X, Regensteiner J, Venditti B, Wylie-Rosett J. Effect of weight loss with lifestyle intervention on risk of diabetes. Diabetes Care 2006;29:2102–2107 24. Morisset AS, St-Yves A, Veillette J, Weis- nagel SJ, Tchernof A, Robitaille J. Pre- vention of gestational diabetes mellitus: a review of studies on weight manage- ment. Diabete Metab Res Rev 2010;26: 17–25 25. Eliassen AH, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Wil- lett WC, Hankinson SE. Adult weight change and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer. JAMA 2006;296:193–201 26. Renehan AG. Bariatric surgery, weight reduction, and cancer prevention. Lan- cet Oncol 2009;10:640–641 27. Buchwald H, Estok R, Fahrbach K, Banel D, Jensen MD, Pories WJ, Bantle JP, Sledge I. Weight and type 2 diabetes af- ter bariatric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med 2009;122: 248–256 28. Barclay AW, Petocz P, McMillan-Price J, Flood VM, Prvan T, Mitchell P, Brand- Miller JC. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and chronic disease risk–a meta- analysis of observational studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:627–637 29. Kushi LH, Byers T, Doyle C, Bandera EV, McCullough M, McTiernan A, Gansler T, Andrews KS, Thun MJ, American Diabetes and cancer 1682 DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 care.diabetesjournals.org Cancer Society 2006 Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. American Cancer Society guidelines on nutrition and physical ac- tivity for cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity. CA Cancer J Clin 2006;56:254–281 30. Tomuta V, Wylie-Rosett J. Nutritional management of diabetes in diabetes and exercise. In Exercise and Diabetes. Regen- steiner JG, Reusch JEB, Steward KJ, Veves A, Eds. New York, HumanaPress, 2009; p. 231–262 31. Kastorini CM, Panagiotakos DB. Dietary patterns and prevention of type 2 diabe- tes: from research to clinical practice; a systematic review. Curr Diabetes Rev 2009;5:221–227 32. Tuomilehto J, Lindstro¨m J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Ha¨ma¨la¨inen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, Keina¨nen-Kiukaanniemi S, Laakso M, Louheranta A, Rastas M, Salminen V, Uusitupa M, Finnish Diabetes Preven- tion Study Group. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. N Engl J Med 2001;344: 1343–1350 33. Krishnan S, Rosenberg L, Singer M, Hu FB, Djousse´ L, Cupples LA, Palmer JR. Glycemic index, glycemic load, and ce- real fiber intake and risk of type 2 diabe- tes in US black women. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2304–2309 34. Kabat GC, Shikany JM, Beresford SA, Caan B, Neuhouser ML, Tinker LF, Ro- han TE. Dietary carbohydrate, glycemic index, and glycemic load in relation to colorectal cancer risk in the Women’s Health Initiative. Cancer Causes Control 2008;19:1291–1298 35. George SM, Mayne ST, Leitzmann MF, Park Y, Schatzkin A, Flood A, Hollen- beck A, Subar AF. Dietary glycemic in- dex, glycemic load, and risk of cancer: a prospective cohort study. Am J Epide- miol 2009;169:462–472 36. Lee IM. Physical activity and cancer pre- vention–data from epidemiologic stud- ies. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35: 1823–1827 37. Friedenreich CM, Orenstein MR: Physical activity and cancer prevention: etiologic evidence and biological mechanisms. J Nutr 2002;132:3456S–3464S 38. Holmes MD, Chen WY, Feskanich D, Kroenke CH, Colditz GA. Physical activ- ity and survival after breast cancer diag- nosis. JAMA 2005;293:2479–2486 39. Meyerhardt JA, Giovannucci EL, Holmes MD, Chan AT, Chan JA, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS. Physical activity and survival after colorectal cancer diagnosis. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:3527–3534 40. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, [article online], 2008. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available from http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/ committeereport.asp. Accessed 1 April 2010 41. Mackay J, Jemal A, Lee NC, Parkin DM. The Cancer Atlas. Atlanta, Georgia, American Cancer Society, 2006 42. Foy CG, Bell RA, Farmer DF, Goff DC Jr, Wagenknecht LE. Smoking and inci- dence of diabetes among U.S. adults: findings from the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study. Diabetes Care 2005;28:2501–2507 43. Willi C, Bodenmann P, Ghali WA, Faris PD, Cornuz J. Active smoking and the risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic re- viewandmeta-analysis. JAMA2007;298: 2654–2664 44. Haire-Joshu D, Glasgow RE, Tibbs TL. Smoking and diabetes. Diabetes Care 1999;22:1887–1898 45. Secretan B, Straif K, Baan R, Grosse Y, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tal- laa L, Guha N, Freeman C, Galichet L, Cogliano V, WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. A review of human car- cinogens–Part E: tobacco, areca nut, al- cohol, coal smoke, and salted fish. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:1033–1034 46. Howard AA, Arnsten JH, Gourevitch MN. Effect of alcohol consumption on diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:211–219 47. Baliunas DO, Taylor BJ, Irving H, Ro- erecke M, Patra J, Mohapatra S, Rehm J. Alcohol as a risk factor for type 2 diabe- tes: A systematic review and meta-anal- ysis. Diabetes Care 2009;32:2123–2132 48. Look AHEAD Research Group, Pi-Su- nyer X, Blackburn G, Brancati FL, Bray GA, Bright R, Clark JM, Curtis JM, Es- peland MA, Foreyt JP, Graves K, Haffner SM, Harrison B, Hill JO, Horton ES, Ja- kicic J, Jeffery RW, Johnson KC, Kahn S, Kelley DE, Kitabchi AE, Knowler WC, Lewis CE, Maschak-Carey BJ, Montgom- ery B, Nathan DM, Patricio J, Peters A, Redmon JB, Reeves RS, Ryan DH, Saf- ford M, Van Dorsten B, Wadden TA, Wagenknecht L, Wesche-Thobaben J, Wing RR, Yanovski SZ. Reduction in weight and cardiovascular disease risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabe- tes: one-year results of the look AHEAD trial. Diabetes Care 2007;30:1374 – 1383 49. Pollak M. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia. Nat Rev Cancer 2008;8:915–928 50. Denley A, Carroll JM, Brierley GV, Cos- grove L, Wallace J, Forbes B, Roberts CT, Jr.: Differential activation of insulin re- ceptor substrates 1 and 2 by insulin-like growth factor-activated insulin recep- tors. Mol Cell Biol 2007;27:3569 –3577 51. Zhang H, Pelzer AM, Kiang DT, Yee D. Down-regulation of type I insulin-like growth factor receptor increases sensi- tivity of breast cancer cells to insulin. Cancer Res 2007;67:391–397 52. Mardilovich K, Pankratz SL, Shaw LM. Expression and function of the insulin receptor substrate proteins in cancer. Cell Commun Signal 2009;7:14 53. Clemmons DR, Maile LA, Ling Y, Yarber J, Busby WH. Role of the integrin al- phaVbeta3 in mediating increased smooth muscle cell responsiveness to IGF-I in response to hyperglycemic stress. Growth Horm IGF Res 2007;17: 265–270 54. Giovannucci E: Insulin, insulin-like growth factors and colon cancer: a re- view of the evidence. J Nutr 2001;131: 3109S–3120S 55. Ooi GT, Tseng LY, Tran MQ, Rechler MM. Insulin rapidly decreases insulin- like growth factor-binding protein-1 gene transcription in streptozotocin-di- abetic rats. Mol Endocrinol 1992;6: 2219–2228 56. Powell DR, Suwanichkul A, Cubbage ML, DePaolis LA, Snuggs MB, Lee PD. Insulin inhibits transcription of the hu- man gene for insulin-like growth factor- binding protein-1. J Biol Chem 1991;266:18868–18876 57. Renehan AG, Frystyk J, Flyvbjerg A. Obesity and cancer risk: the role of the insulin-IGF axis. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2006;17:328–336 58. Weinstein D, Simon M, Yehezkel E, Laron Z, Werner H. Insulin analogues display IGF-I-like mitogenic and anti- apoptotic activities in cultured cancer cells. Diabete Metab Res Rev 2009;25: 41–49 59. Papa V, Pezzino V, Costantino A, Bel- fiore A, Giuffrida D, Frittitta L, Vannelli GB, Brand R, Goldfine ID, Vigneri R. El- evated insulin receptor content in hu- man breast cancer. J Clin Invest 1990; 86:1503–1510 60. Mulligan AM, O’Malley FP, Ennis M, Fantus IG, Goodwin PJ. Insulin receptor is an independent predictor of a favor- able outcome in early stage breast can- cer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;106: 39–47 61. Mathieu MC, Clark GM, Allred DC, Goldfine ID, Vigneri R. Insulin receptor expression and clinical outcome in node-negative breast cancer. Proc Assoc Am Physicians 1997;109:565–571 62. Tamimi RM, Byrne C, Colditz GA, Hankinson SE. Endogenous hormone levels, mammographic density, and sub- sequent risk of breast cancer in post- menopausal women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:1178–1187 63. Hilsenbeck SG, Ravdin PM, de Moor CA, Chamness GC, Osborne CK, Clark GM. Time-dependence of hazard ratios for prognostic factors in primary breast can- cer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;52: 227–237 Giovannucci and Associates care.diabetesjournals.org DIABETES CARE, VOLUME 33, NUMBER 7, JULY 2010 1683 [...]... Association, European Association for Study of Diabetes Medical management of hyperglycemia in type 2 diabetes: a consensus algorithm for the initiation and adjustment of therapy: a consensus statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes Diabetes Care 2009; 32:193–203 Shaw RJ, Lamia KA, Vasquez D, Koo SH, Bardeesy N, Depinho RA, Montminy M, Cantley... clinical trials? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:701–705 Ohta K, Endo T, Haraguchi K, Hershman JM, Onaya T Ligands for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma inhibit growth and induce apoptosis of human papillary thyroid carcinoma cells J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:2170 –2177 Panigrahy D, Huang S, Kieran MW, Kaipainen A PPARgamma as a therapeutic target for tumor angiogenesis and. .. proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) gamma ligand troglitazone as treatment for refractory breast cancer: a phase II study Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;79:391–397 A Phase 1/2 Dose Finding Study of an Experimental New Drug CS7017, an Oral PPARy Agonist Taken by Mouth Twice Daily in Combination With Paclitaxel Chemotherapy [clinical trial], 2008 Clinical trial reg no NCT00603941, clinicaltrials.gov Accessed... Mannucci E Sulphonylureas and cancer: a case-control study Acta Diabetol 2009;46:279 –284 Wright JL, Stanford JL Metformin use and prostate cancer in Caucasian men: results from a population-based casecontrol study Cancer Causes Control 2009;20:1617–1622 Landman GW, Kleefstra N, van Hateren KJ, Groenier KH, Gans RO, Bilo HJ Metformin associated with lower cancer mortality in type 2 diabetes: ZODIAC16... metastasis Cancer Biol Ther 2005;4: 687– 693 Ondrey F Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma pathway targeting in carcinogenesis: implications for chemoprevention Clin Cancer Res 2009; care.diabetesjournals.org Giovannucci and Associates 15:2– 8 100 Clay CE, Namen AM, Atsumi G, Trimboli AJ, Fonteh AN, High KP, Chilton FH Magnitude of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma activation... With Initial Glargine Intervention) [registered clinical trial], 2009 Clinical trial reg no NCT00069784, clinicaltrials.gov Accessed 5 April 2010 Shukla A, Grisouard J, Ehemann V, Hermani A, Enzmann H, Mayer D Analysis of signaling pathways related to cell proliferation stimulated by insulin analogs in human mammary epithelial cell lines Endocr Relat Cancer 2009;16:429 – 441 Kurtzhals P, Schaffer L,... compared to other anti-diabetic agents Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007;16:485– 492 105 Govindarajan R, Ratnasinghe L, Simmons DL, Siegel ER, Midathada MV, Kim L, Kim PJ, Owens RJ, Lang NP Thiazolidinediones and the risk of lung, prostate, and colon cancer in patients with diabetes J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1476 –1481 106 Ramos-Nino ME, MacLean CD, Littenberg B Association between cancer prevalence and use... and cancer: the role of dysfunctional adipose tissue Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18: 2569 –2578 70 Ulisse S, Baldini E, Sorrenti S, D’Armiento M The urokinase plasminogen activator system: a target for anticancer therapy Curr Cancer Drug Targets 2009;9:32–71 71 Yu H, Pardoll D, Jove R STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: a leading role for STAT3 Nat Rev Cancer 2009;9: 798 – 809 72 Kalaany... prevalence and use of thiazolidinediones: results from the Vermont Diabetes Information System BMC Med 2007; 5:17 107 Monami M, Lamanna C, Marchionni N, care.diabetesjournals.org 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 Mannucci E Rosiglitazone and risk of cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials Diabetes Care 2008;31: 1455–1460 Burstein HJ, Demetri GD, Mueller E, Sarraf P, Spiegelman BM, Winer EP Use... ZODIAC16 Diabetes Care 2010;33:322–326 Jiralerspong S, Palla SL, Giordano SH, Meric-Bernstam F, Liedtke C, Barnett CM, Hsu L, Hung MC, Hortobagyi GN, Gonzalez-Angulo AM Metformin and pathologic complete responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in diabetic patients with breast cancer J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3297–3302 Cazzaniga M, Bonanni B, GuerrieriGonzaga A, Decensi A Is it time to test metformin in breast cancer . African Americans are non-Hispanic whites, with Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders having lower cancer incidence and mortality. 2007; 5:17 107. Monami M, Lamanna C, Marchionni N, Mannucci E. Rosiglitazone and risk of cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Diabetes Care 2008;31: 1455–1460 108.